Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL-Invoked Procedures for 8.1
Date: 2004-10-21 17:11:05
Message-ID: 20041021171105.GF68407@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:17:23PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> And, not that I think about it, I have a way to support DEFAULT params within
> the context of overloading. Let me muse it over and I'll get back to you.

Yes, but using overloading to implement defaults is a pain. Imagine how
much you need to overload to have 5 default arguments; that equates to 4
stub functions/prodecudes. In the case of adding a single parameter it's
not that bad, but it becomes very onerous if you're trying to provide
default values for a bunch of parameters.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dennis Bjorklund 2004-10-21 17:12:06 Re: [HACKERS] BUG #1290: Default value and ALTER...TYPE
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2004-10-21 16:31:34 Re: Why frequently updated tables are an issue